Regarding IRE set

[Pernille.S]

I observe that the IRE set also constains RNW processes. Is there a reason for this? And does this indicate that somethings is wrongly defined in our model?

Pernille

---

[Antti-L]

The set IRE contains all trade processes, i.e. those that have their topology defined by TOP_IRE, and are therefore inter-regional exchange processes. So, I guess your "RNW" processes are such trade processes?

Basically, TIMES does not know which of these trade processes are real trade processes and which are meant to be representing "primary energy extraction", like I assume your "RNW" processes are.  But of course, we could use an additional process characterization (e.g. the predefined "XTRACT") for separating real trade processes from "primary energy extraction" processes.

If that would help, I could implement that change, if I happen to be nominated for the next TIMES maintenance term (and if I survive the current pandemic ).  Then you would be able to use the "XTRACT" characterization to define the "RNW" processes in another set instead of IRE, probably we should call it "XTRACT".

[Edit:]  Hmm... but looking at your screenshot more closely, I am not actually so sure what these processes are. Could you thus clarify the role of these processes, and check whether they are exchange processes or not (do they have TOP_IRE defined?).

[Pernille.S]

The set IRE contains all trade processes, i.e. those that have their topology defined by TOP_IRE, and are therefore inter-regional exchange processes. So, I guess your "RNW" processes are such trade processes?

Basically, TIMES does not know which of these trade processes are real trade processes and which are meant to be representing "primary energy extraction", like I assume your "RNW" processes are.  But of course, we could use an additional process characterization (e.g. the predefined "XTRACT") for separating real trade processes from "primary energy extraction" processes.

If that would help, I could implement that change, if I happen to be nominated for the next TIMES maintenance term (and if I survive the current pandemic ).  Then you would be able to use the "XTRACT" characterization to define the "RNW" processes in another set instead of IRE, probably we should call it "XTRACT".

[Edit:]  Hmm... but looking at your screenshot more closely, I am not actually so sure what these processes are. Could you thus clarify the role of these processes, and check whether they are exchange processes or not (do they have TOP_IRE defined?).

Thank you for trying to understand the issue. I believe I do not have the full overview of the various Sets definitions and I need to understand this better.

I have attached more details of these processes. They are just electricity generation technologies not a mining technology.  From the master form I see that they are defines as a IRE. I assume this happens automatically when I use the RNW set. Right? I also see that the set "ELE"description ( in VEDA) is "Thermal electricity power plant". Maybe we get around by using the ELE set for the renewable electricity generation technologies?

Note that this is not really a problem, we can get around. However,  I believe a differentiating between "XTRACT" and "IRE" would be beneficial in a long-run. Also, if we should use ELE for renewable electricity generation, the description of this Set should be changed.

I can send you the power sector BY-sheet to you by e-mail if you wish more information.

It is positive that TIMES code development can help you in the current situation .

[Antti-L]

Thanks for the additional information. I think the crucial thing to check here is whether VEDA defines TOP_IRE for these processes, like I suggested you to check.  Actually, if you see these processes in the set IRE in VEDA-BE, I think that must be the case, can you confirm?

If VEDA does indeed define TOP_IRE for them (using MINRNW as the external region), the processes will not work as intended, and in that case you should definitely not be defining these processes as "RNW".

It is positive that TIMES code development can help you to survive the current situation.

Sorry, you must have misunderstood, I didn't say so.  It is quite the opposite: Surviving the current situation would help doing further TIMES development.

[Pernille.S]

Thanks for the additional information. I think the crucial thing to check here is whether VEDA defines TOP_IRE for these processes, like I suggested you to check.  Actually, if you see these processes in the set IRE in VEDA-BE, I think that must be the case, can you confirm?

If VEDA does indeed define TOP_IRE for them (using MINRNW as the external region), the processes will not work as intended, and in that case you should definitely not be defining these processes as "RNW".

It is positive that TIMES code development can help you to survive the current situation.

Sorry, you must have misunderstood, I didn't say so.  It is quite the opposite: Surviving the current situation would help doing further TIMES development.

[Antti-L]

Ok, I tested it myself now to check whether the process will be defined as a trade process just because you define it "RNW".  My test confirmed that being the case: The process will have TOP_IRE defined for the input and output commodities. Thus, if you have one input and one output, both will be traded between the external MINRNW region and the (current) internal region.  Moreover, there is no relation between the input flow (exports) and the output flow (imports): they are independent from each other.  And if the PG is the output (=default), the capacity is defined by the output flow.

Consequently, if you define power plant processes like that, they will certainly not be working as intended, because they are then trade processes. For example, any EFF parameter will be ignored (unless you define it in a trade scenario where it gets converted to IRE_FLO), and the input flow does not reflect the energy consumed by producing the output.  So, I would suggest to use some other process characterization (e.g. ELE as suggested by yourself).

[Pernille.S]

Ok, I tested it myself now to check whether the process will be defined as a trade process just because you define it "RNW".  My test confirmed that being the case: The process will have TOP_IRE defined for the input and output commodities. Thus, if you have one input and one output, both will be traded between the external MINRNW region and the (current) internal region.  Moreover, there is no relation between the input flow (exports) and the output flow (imports): they are independent from each other.  And if the PG is the output (=default), the capacity is defined by the output flow.

Consequently, if you define power plant processes like that, they will certainly not be working as intended, because they are then trade processes. For example, any EFF parameter will be ignored (unless you define it in a trade scenario where it gets converted to IRE_FLO), and the input flow does not reflect the energy consumed by producing the output.  So, 

I apologize my late response to this issue. My working capacity is very limited these days. 

Anyways, thank you very much for making it clear that RNW is not an appropriate set for renewable electricity generation. Lucky for us, our model is designed in such a way that changing the set definition of these processes had no impact on the objective function value.

I assume that others than myself have done this error. Amit, do you agree to change the Sets descriptions in VEDA to avoid this future modelers to make this error?